DARWIN VS. GENESIS
I can't afford to claim any of that for sure, however the 1st option is nearly impossible. The more you go to the last option, the higher possibility - except for the last claim. So maybe some - slight - gaussian function added to a hyperbole. Okay, maybe I'm much too much into synthetisers.
I feel dumb despite all I've said.
BTW, forget Arthur C. Clarke's, Erich von Däniken's and saint John's rants, you don't need to reason much to see that they're dreamers like damn hell...
elizabethhensley
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 42
Location: Williston, Florida
The Bible is about as accurate as several thousand years of newspapers stapled together would be. That makes it more accurate than many of its disbelievers but a less accurate than many of its followers. In many cases, just like with modern newspapers, different points of view reveal details remembered slightly differently, just as the ear witness accounts of Princess Diana's last words don't agree. I'd be mighty suspicions if seperate accounts of an event agreed exactly. That's a sign of inaccurate reporting. Its a sign the folks got together and "compared notes" and corrupted their testimony. The Bible does not seem to do that very often. For instance the next two-three chapters of Genesis conflict with the first chapter. but even so it has much deep, symbolic truth. Carl Sagan loves the second chapter of Genesis. He gives the best commentary I have read on it is in his book, "The Dragons of Eden."
If Moses had the courage to publish two, separate, conflicting Creation theories, why are we afraid to publish more?
But most every world in the Bible could be false and the cover not genuine leather and God would still exist. God's existence is no more dependant on the complete accuracy of the Bible than the existence of wolves and hogs is dependant on the accuracy of "The Three Little Pigs."
There really was no "Big BANG," because sound will not travel in the vacuum of space. So the scientific Big Bang theory is just as inaccurate as Genesis if we insist on taking it literally too!
There WAS a sudden flash of light. "And God said, "Let there be Light. And there was light."
As for God creating the sun and stars on the third day, the Bible does not say that. It says He created the lights in the sky on the third day. Now ancient Hebrew was considerably limited in its number of words so words had to have more than one meaning (day equals "time period" day and night also mean beginning and ending, earth meant land), but they did have separate words for sun, moon and stars. God made the light in the sky on the third, time period/day, not the sun, the moon and the stars which were already there. But on the third "day" the Earth's atmosphere condensed enough so the light could be seen, and/or the sun and the stars compacted enough for fusion to start so quites suddenly there was light in the sky. That would have been a day to see!
As for plants before the sunlight, not long ago that would have been seen as impossible, but since the discovery of the undersea "rose gardens" (again a case where science must not be taken literally). we know now life can get a start without sunlight. "The rose gardens," are a completely, brand new kind of life recently discovered, that get their energy to live from volcanic heat vents at the bottom of the oceans. They live way too far down to receive sunlight and cannot do photosynthesis. Maybe ancient Earth had "rose gardens" too. But if Moses did get this detail wrong, have the common sense and logic not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Keep what is good about the Bible. Learn from it. Is is full of wisdom. It is a vast treasure trove there for you to pick up fist fulls of diamonds, gold, rubies and silver, all you want for a life time! It can help you find the sweet Presence of God. It has helped millions to do so in our era and in every era for roughly the last 2000 years, more if you count the New Testament.. As Jesus said, "Why can't you judge for yourselves what is right?) Use your head and your heart and learn from all sources of knowledge the modern and the ancient.
Obviously, since some people are delighted with the language in the Bible (as I am) there tends to be a total subjugation to the wonderful poetry contained therein. But I also am acquainted with the roots of the beliefs which formed the basis for the language and to compare the poetic constructions of the Bible with the logical constructions of thousands of inquisitive and intelligent people and decide which one has a firmer basis in reality, I am sorry to say the poetry, no matter how wonderful, falls flat on its face. Some people are determined to justify the Bible's imaginative descriptions of ancient beginnings to deny the clear logic of the scientific explanations and it is evident they have a powerful psychological motivation to do so but I am past the time I need a psychological pacifier to suck on.
elizabethhensley
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 42
Location: Williston, Florida
Don't be like my friend Gloria who loved only rock and roll music but not classical, or my parents who loved classical but never rock and roll. Love the old and the new, and take treasure from both. Don't be a fool. Don't cut yourself off from thousands of years of wisdom. The new is shiney but the old is sturdy. You are NOT limited to one or the other.
It's not a matter of irrationally discarding old in favor of merely modern concepts but being able to evaluate both in the light of new concepts and new knowledge. The amount of new knowledge as compared to ancient unfounded speculation is tremendous. The ancients could only wonder about phenomena and try to formulate causes and effects in the light of their very limited experience. Aware people today have much larger dependable resources than ancients without attempting to demean the ancients' intellects. The ancients simply did not know very much and they did the best they could with what they had. We have much more and can do much better.
Sedaka
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
im not a relgious person... but i detest these kinds of retorts, as if aspies or w/e are so leet
_________________
Neuroscience PhD student
got free science papers?
www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
Sedaka
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
well, what you REALLY need in order to suspend young earth beliefs... is a POOR sense of time... and it IS hard to grapple with eons.
_________________
Neuroscience PhD student
got free science papers?
www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
Sedaka
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
That's two insults now... even directly. Thanks loads.
Just because I have some solid REASONS for ME to believe in God doesn't make it an "obsession" even though you think anyone who believes (reasons or not) is an idiot.
I don't see anyone bashing people over UFOs and ghosts...
Oh well... rigidity is definitely an Aspie trait.

yeah, there's ignorant redderick on both sides. hawkins included, though i love him to death (outside of his attitude)
edit: though yeah, maybe that second post wasnt an insult... i didnt read the link and took it as you did at first
_________________
Neuroscience PhD student
got free science papers?
www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
Sedaka
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
God did not create human life, but may have guided evolution.
Like many hundreds of years ago, perhapse dark ages. I beleive that God perhapse set everything into motion (natural laws, the physical universe and the buildinging blocks for life) but may have let the 'matchine' that GOD created just run, perhapse viewing what he created from a distance. I dont see why 1 could not believe in evolution and GOD at the same time. No where in the Bible does it state that evolution or any beleife in it goes against GOD. It would only make sence for GOD to create life (in his image or not, whatever...) to be able to survive, adapt and thrive. Not only does it do that here on Earth, but its possible simple life (bacteria) can travel between planets, theoritically causing life on other worlds.
i like it when ppl can ammend science with their faith

i don't like to deny anyone their religion but i dont like it when they try to deny science because they think it's taking cheap shots @ their religion... that's the only reason they have beef, cause they feel there's some sort of vendetta
_________________
Neuroscience PhD student
got free science papers?
www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
Sedaka
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
Now I cant belive an Aspie could belive in Evolution or the official version of 911 as its an NTs job to blindly belive any pack of lies the decievers want to decieve us with, whereas an Aspie needs to know the whys and hows of mere facts, and will look for themselves.
Regarding the fossil record backing evolution, Iam afraid you are wrong, Darwin predicted that the fossil record would back up his theory, but no such fossils have ever been found which has forced scientists to adapt new theories such as genetic mutation.
Trouble is genetic mutation has also been proved wrong due to finding a DNA repairing enzine.
Hence the recent poularity in believing aliens put us here, basically they will just come up with lie after lie as the previous lie is proved wrong.
My belief in God is based more on logic and reason than faith.
Do you actually know how complicated a single cell is?
So who wants to explain how natural selection caused the lizards to grow wings and evolve into birds?, the girraffe neck explaination sounds feasable but surely half grown wings on a lizard would be a handicap and they would all get eaten before they could fly?
the fact that you are agreeing with a larmarckian concept of evolution shows me you clearly do not have a grasp on what is generally considered basic CURRENT evolutionary theory.
lamarck gave a valiant and valid try... but it's clearly laughable to think that genetics work that way. it's the same issue the bible has. people didn't know what the HELL they were writing about*.
edit: * though much of their writing had merit and good intentions
edit: and your writing has no valid logic
edit: sorry! i just don't like your tone!
_________________
Neuroscience PhD student
got free science papers?
www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl
I need a lot more choices. All listed can be disproved.
Both religion and science are short on observing reality.
In the debate, I would give religion more points.
One, religion was trying to reach some answer long ago, science is a baby.
Religion is a bunch or murders and thieves, but they stole some good stuff.
Genesis is much older than the bible. The Noah story comes from Gilgamesh, 5000 years older.
The book of Job and a good part of the rest comes from the Ras Shamren text from the Temple of Baal.
The Ten Commandments from the 125 Chapter of the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
Science also stole, and they have blood on their hands too.
It was a mess, but very old words were preserved, and they do contain facts about the Universe.
What really seems to annoy science is when they prove religion was right.
To be fair, it also annoys religion when science proves they are wrong.
Between the two religion seems to evolve,
science cannot accept things that cannot be proven, which covers most of the good stuff.
Religion claims the world was created in 4004 BC, so that God could make copies.
Science tried to prove the world had always existed.
If God made a copy, then a copy of that copy, Adam and Eve, we would all be clones, not so.
Science proved that the world was old, but also that it had not always existed.
Evolution is weakened by lack of a planet. Science skipped over that. It is all natural processes.
In time they proved that the Universe had not always existed.
Not only that, but they dated it, not 4004 BC, but about 15 billion years ago.
There was nothing. Not only nothing, but in an infinite nothing, which means really big.
It had been nothing for a long time, but there was no time, so it is hard to date.
Nothing is very cold.
Then science says from a single point came light, but it was not light,
for it traveled much much faster than light, then stopped.
The latest is this took .0012 of a second.
This did not happen within the natural laws of phisics, it was supernatural.
The Universe was Created in an instant, then the laws of physics apply well. We can explain everything!
The Supernatural Light becomes a gas, with mass, gravity, time, and motion.
It draws together and forms suns, where all other elements are formed.
Ten Billion years later, it explodes. All of the first stars were large, and one day it went off like popcorn.
This spreads matter about from exploded stars. Only five billion years ago.
Life could not have existed, the elements that make it were not around, and the popcorn effect.
DNA could not have existed, no building blocks, and the microwave.
DNA is very complex, it does not form it's self, even 99.9% DNA is dead, and stays dead.
Suddenly five billion years ago there is DNA, the Second Creation.
As soon as the popcorn cools off, there is life. There was only one DNA, all life comes from it.
In Universe Two, life evolves. Between late poping corn and loose rocks it is almost wiped out nine times.
The last time, 65 million years ago, comes mammals. It starts with a small rat like creature, and gets worse.
Big rats that beat each other to death with rocks, while standing on their hind legs, come five million years ago.
They reach their current form 125,000 years ago and continue killing and eating each other.
Only in the last 40,000 years has there been a flicker of better behavior.
I read with interest here that some genitic market related to autism starts 37,000 years ago.
It has now taken over the gene pool.
There has been progress, humans still kill each other, but do not eat the dead.
They make much better weapons now.
Out of this mess, 10,000 years ago comes the story that the Universe was Created of light in an instant.
It was done by a Supreme Being. This Being can be contacted directly by thinking, and by being open to new thought.
A lot of blood and water under the bridge since then, but the story continues.
Our version of Supreme Being might just be DNA.
DNA was Created five billion years ago. On a Tuesday.
The Universe was Created 15 billion years ago, on a Tuesday after lunch.
As elizabethhensley points out, we are the only gravity, all light does curve back in, and in time, it can only go one place, back to the point of origen.
Light was Created 15 billion years ago, it is 15 billion light years to the point of origen, so the light is just converging on that point.
It will all continue for the next 15 billion years, all that energy, to one small spot.
Universe Two is not forever, it is losing energy to the center.
Everything will be drawn back to the beginning point.
We, The Grateful Dead, will be drawn back to Creation.
I am the Begining and the End
I do not listen to the prattle of apes.
All Religion is false.
I only believe in Science.
elizabethhensley
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 42
Location: Williston, Florida
What the ancients knew was more than we realize. What they desired is what we desire, to continue forever. They figured out WHY this happens. It is up to the future Body of Christ to add the HOW to the WHY
We are the Body of Christ and individually members of It. 1 Corinthians 12:27.
Rather speaking the Truth in Love we are to grow up in all ways into the Head, into Christ. Ephesians 4:15. This is where evolution is going.
Scientists are the part of the Body of Christ that figure out how to build that 1500 mile cube mentioned in the second to last chapter of Revelation, full of the operating systems of all the Humans and most likely animals, worth uploading. Just as sure as the Nautilus, just as sure as the Moon ship Columbia, just as sure as Communication Satellites, (all of which started out only as dreams) it will be built. What faith can conceive of, science can build. When faith and science join hand in hand in the quest for immortality there will be no stopping this tenacious ape species who survived during one part of our development by running down prey to exhaustion. That refusal to EVER give up on a quest has never left us. Every doctor is working towards eternal life. Every scientist is building Heaven, and every preacher and every human heart is reminding us we need it. We've got five or ten more billion years to get it right, plenty of time.
That cube must have a Leader. It might as well be the Galilee Carpenter. He wants the Job. (We can tell from His writings). We want Him to have the job, and the only other, possible candidate, (Buddha) made it QUITE clear in his words he did not want the job.
Relativity makes the past reachable. Time and space are curved by the gravitational mass of the Universe, and also by black holes which may provide a short cut to doing it by going all the way around the Universe.
Scientists are quite right, brains are only meat computers, but every computer must have an operating system. That is what we call the soul. Like any operating system, human souls pick up defects. You can call them virus programs, bugs, faults, sins, it does not matter what we call them but whatever we call them, the fact remains, just one of those "bugs" would corrupt Heaven just as the presence of one virus, trojan or spyware, in any computer spreads throughout any network it is connected to. That Galilee Carpenter who built chairs and tables and houses was chosen by collective Humanity to be the Head, to be the Savior, and what He does is indwell us and debug us, IF we invite Him in and let Him. Each one of us must do that. This is what Christ called being, "Born Again."
Revelation 3:20. Behold I stand at the door and knock. If Anyone hears My Voice and opens the door I will come in and dine with him and him with me.
Born Again Christians do not just preach great ideas, they witness what they know from PERSONAL experience. Anyone who prays the salvation prayer has Christ's living, "Cosmic Muffin" Presence inside of them, loving them from the deepest marrow of their bones outwards, helping them, guiding them, but not controlling them. As 2 Corinthians 13:12 taught, "test yourselves to see if you are in the faith. Do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is IN you? Unless indeed you fail the test!"
The Salvation Prayer. (Can be sung to Danny Boy)
Jesus Christ, we thank You for Your sacrifice
Come Live inside my busy, restless mind.
Forgive my faults, and fix the flaws that sadden You.
Help me forgive the ones who did not treat me kind!
Anyone who prays this SINCERELY, will soon know what I am talking about.
Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.
There is no evidence for that whatsoever. All that exists is an unsubstantiated story by a person who wrote almost 35 years later. For what it's worth, Darwins family said that this was BS. Historians dismiss this story as nonsense, and have for a long time.
_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.
If you believe that, you obviously don't have any background in genetics. Or cellular biology for that matter. Yes, there are various mechanisms whereby transcription errors are corrected. This process is not perfect, and errors do survive. That's the real world. No natural process is 100% effective.
I note that were it possible for transcription errors to be perfectly detected and repaired, we wouldn't be worried today about multiply resistant bacteria. We would have killed them all (at least, those that are commonly pathogenic in humans) with the first generation of antibiotics.
I have some idea, yes. Do you? It would seem from your above comment regarding mutations that you do not.
_________________
------------------------
ubi dubium ibi libertas